Incorporating Dermatologic Clinical Research Into Private Practice: A Review

Clinical research is beneficial for the continued progression of medicine and the larger body of scientific knowledge. Clinical research can be incorporated into a range of settings, ranging from larger learning institutions to small private practices. With the need for continued advancement of the development of pharmaceutical interventions as well as other forms of clinical understanding, it is advantageous to create an environment where smaller, private practices feel comfortable and guided in establishing clinical research. It can be difficult to find the best methods to incorporate in-house clinical research. This review aims to address this gap in the literature, making the establishment of clinical trials, specifically clinical drug trials, more accessible in dermatology for private practices.

Voluntariness of consent in paediatric HIV clinical trials: a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of participants in the CHAPAS-4 and ODYSSEY trials in Uganda

OBJECTIVES

To examine the voluntariness of consent in paediatric HIV clinical trials and the associated factors.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods, cross-sectional study combining a quantitative survey conducted concurrently with indepth interviews.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

From January 2021 to April 2021, we interviewed parents of children on first-line or second-line Anti-retroviral therapy (ART) in two ongoing paediatric HIV clinical trials [CHAPAS-4 (ISRCTN22964075) and ODYSSEY (ISRCTN91737921)] at the Joint Clinical Research Centre Mbarara, Uganda.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures were the proportion of parents with voluntary consent, factors affecting voluntariness and the sources of external influence. Parents rated the voluntariness of their consent on a voluntariness ladder. Indepth interviews described participants' lived experiences and were aimed at adding context.

RESULTS

All 151 parents randomly sampled for the survey participated (84% female, median age 40 years). Most (67%) gave a fully voluntary decision, with a score of 10 on the voluntariness ladder, whereas 8% scored 9, 9% scored 8, 6% scored 7, 8% scored 6 and 2.7% scored 4. Trust in medical researchers (adjusted OR 9.90, 95% CI 1.01 to 97.20, p=0.049) and male sex of the parent (adjusted OR 3.66, 95% CI 1.00 to 13.38, p=0.05) were positively associated with voluntariness of consent. Prior research experience (adjusted OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.78, p=0.014) and consulting (adjusted OR 0.25. 95% CI 0.10 to 0.60, p=0.002) were negatively associated with voluntariness. Consultation and advice came from referring health workers (36%), spouses (29%), other family members (27%), friends (15%) and researchers (7%). The indepth interviews (n=14) identified the health condition of the child, advice from referring health workers and the opportunity to access better care as factors affecting the voluntariness of consent.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated a high voluntariness of consent, which was enhanced among male parents and by parents' trust in medical researchers. Prior research experience of the child and advice from health workers and spouses were negatively associated with the voluntariness of parents' consent. Female parents and parents of children with prior research experience may benefit from additional interventions to support voluntary participation.

Which Benefits Can Justify Risks in Research?

Research ethics committees (RECs) evaluate whether the risk-benefit ratio of a study is acceptable. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are a novel approach for conducting clinical trials that potentially bring important benefits for research, including several collateral benefits. The position of collateral benefits in risk-benefit assessments is currently unclear. DCTs raise therefore questions about how these benefits should be assessed. This paper aims to reconsider the different types of research benefits, and their position in risk-benefit assessments. We first propose a categorization of research benefits, based on the types of benefits that can be distinguished from the literature and ethical guidelines. Secondly, we will reconsider the position of collateral benefits. We argue that these benefits are not fundamentally different from other benefits of research and can therefore be included in risk-benefit assessments of DCTs.

Compensating patients in trials: Perspectives from an ethical committee versus sponsor

BACKGROUND

According to European clinical research legislation, no undue influence, including financial incentives, should be used to encourage participation in clinical trials. Financial compensation should be based on the inconvenience experienced by patients and is determined by the sponsor.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the adequacy of patients' financial compensation by obtaining an external ethical opinion compared to the actual compensation provided.

METHODS

We randomly selected and reviewed 50 clinical drug trials, including 25 academic and 25 industry-sponsored studies. An external ethics group consisting of three members from French ethics committees, blinded to the actual compensation and the sponsor, retrospectively reviewed the study characteristics and assessed whether financial compensation was appropriate. Cohen's Kappa test measured agreement between actual compensation and the ethics group's opinion, and the McNemar test measured discrepancies.

RESULTS

There was no agreement between the actual financial compensation and the ethics group's opinion (K = -.07; 95% CI = [-.16-.02]). More discrepancies were found in favour of financial compensation according to the ethics group than provided by sponsors (12 vs. 2, p = .016). The ethics group recommended financial compensation in 12 out of 50 studies (24%), which were studies with a higher number of additional visits (p = .004) and were more frequently sponsored by industry (p = .008). Sponsors only provided financial compensation in 2 out of 50 studies (4%).

CONCLUSION

Patients are rarely compensated despite the perceived inconvenience. Both sponsors and ethics members struggle to determine the need for financial compensation, indicating a need for more precise recommendations for both parties.

Remote Observational Research for Multiple Sclerosis: A Natural Experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Prospective, deeply phenotyped research cohorts monitoring individuals with chronic neurologic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis (MS), depend on continued participant engagement. The COVID-19 pandemic restricted in-clinic research activities, threatening this longitudinal engagement, but also forced adoption of televideo-enabled care. This offered a natural experiment in which to analyze key dimensions of remote research: (1) comparison of remote vs in-clinic visit costs from multiple perspectives and (2) comparison of the remote with in-clinic measures in cross-sectional and longitudinal disability evaluations.

METHODS

Between March 2020 and December 2021, 207 MS cohort participants underwent hybrid in-clinic and virtual research visits; 96 contributed 100 "matched visits," that is, in-clinic (Neurostatus-Expanded Disability Status Scale [NS-EDSS]) and remote (televideo-enabled EDSS [tele-EDSS]; electronic patient-reported EDSS [ePR-EDSS]) evaluations. Clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics of participants were collected.

RESULTS

The costs of remote visits were lower than in-clinic visits for research investigators (facilities, personnel, parking, participant compensation) but also for participants (travel, caregiver time) and carbon footprint (p < 0.05 for each). Median cohort EDSS was similar between the 3 modalities (NS-EDSS: 2, tele-EDSS: 1.5, ePR-EDSS: 2, range 0.6.5); the remote evaluations were each noninferior to the NS-EDSS within ±0.5 EDSS point (TOST for noninferiority, p < 0.01 for each). Furthermore, year to year, the % of participants with worsening/stable/improved EDSS scores was similar, whether each annual evaluation used NS-EDSS or whether it switched from NS-EDSS to tele-EDSS.

DISCUSSION

Altogether, the current findings suggest that remote evaluations can reduce the costs of research participation for patients, while providing a reasonable evaluation of disability trajectory longitudinally. This could inform the design of remote research that is more inclusive of diverse participants.

Incentives in Pediatric Research in Developing Countries: When Are They Too Much?

When incentives are offered to parents and their children to partake in research, there are concerns that parents may be unduly influenced by the incentives, and the children may be exploited. We present a case from a low- and middle-income country and consider the ethical issues that arise when the children are asked to participate in a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the effects of a nutritional supplement on growth. The first commenter, from Malaysia, notes that their residents might not share Americans' expectations regarding children's role in the consent process from a cultural perspective, which may alter the analysis of the concerns. The authors of the second commentary emphasize the use of incentives that benefit the child participant rather than their parent or are provided directly to the child participant to address the concerns. The third commentator discusses the importance of minimizing the study's risks and balancing the benefits and the risks, which attenuates the concerns.

Sarcoidosis: Updates on therapeutic drug trials and novel treatment approaches

Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. It affects the lungs in over 90% of patients yet extra-pulmonary and multi-organ involvement is common. Spontaneous remission of disease occurs commonly, nonetheless, over 50% of patients will require treatment and up to 30% of patients will develop a chronic progressive non-remitting disease with marked pulmonary fibrosis leading to significant morbidity and death. Guidelines outlining an immunosuppressive treatment approach to sarcoidosis were recently published, however, the strength of evidence behind many of the guideline recommended drugs is weak. None of the drugs currently used for the treatment of sarcoidosis have been rigorously studied and prescription of these drugs is often based on off-label” indications informed by experience with other diseases. Indeed, only two medications [prednisone and repository corticotropin (RCI) injection] currently used in the treatment of sarcoidosis are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. This situation results in significant reimbursement challenges especially for the more advanced (and often more effective) drugs that are favored for severe and refractory forms of disease causing an over-reliance on corticosteroids known to be associated with significant dose and duration dependent toxicities. This past decade has seen a renewed interest in developing new drugs and exploring novel therapeutic pathways for the treatment of sarcoidosis. Several of these trials are active randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to recruit relatively large numbers of patients with a goal to determine the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of these new molecules and therapeutic approaches. While it is an exciting time, it is also necessary to exercise caution. Resources including research dollars and most importantly, patient populations available for trials are limited and thus necessitate that several of the challenges facing drug trials and drug development in sarcoidosis are addressed. This will ensure that currently available resources are judiciously utilized. Our paper reviews the ongoing and anticipated drug trials in sarcoidosis and addresses the challenges facing these and future trials. We also review several recently completed trials and draw lessons that should be applied in future.

The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants

In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of-more or less well-justified-ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have a prima facie moral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical "spine" of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical "skeleton" of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits).

How is Clinical Trial Reimbursement Money Spent? South African Trial Participants' Reported Reimbursement Spending Patterns and Perceptions of Appropriate Reimbursement Amounts

Reimbursement of participants in clinical trials is extensively debated. Guidance recommends that compensation should reflect time, inconvenience and reimbursement of expenses. This study describes how participants spend their reimbursement and perceptions of appropriate reimbursement amounts. This was a sub-study of the evidence for contraceptive options and HIV outcomes (ECHO) trial. Participants were from two sites in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. A mixed methods approach was used. 500 participants completed a questionnaire, and 32 participated in one of four focus group discussions (FGD). The majority (81%) used reimbursement for transport to the research site, followed by toiletry purchases (64%). Many described how reimbursement supplemented income, used to cover basic living costs. Some used money to buy luxury items and takeaway foods. The ideal reimbursement amount per visit ranged: ZAR150-ZAR340 (US$10–24). Reimbursement spending and perceptions are in line with local guidance. Reimbursement should consider risk minimization together with ensuring informed, voluntary decision making.

The effect of stress and acculturation on the self-rated health of Arab Americans

BACKGROUND:

The self-rated health of Arab Americans has been found to be worse than non-Hispanic whites. Psychosocial factors such as stress and acculturation may explain this disparity. As a result, we designed this survey to better understand the effects of stress and acculturation on the self-rated health of the Arab-American community.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Using a convenience sample, we surveyed 142 self-identified Arab Americans regarding demographics, stress, acculturation, and self-rated health. Stress was measured using instruments assessing perceived stress, everyday discrimination, and acculturative stress. Acculturation was measured using a modified Vancouver Index of Acculturation. To measure self-rated health, participants were asked to rate their current health on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good).

RESULTS:

A logistic regression model adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and education did not find that stress significantly affected the odds of having poor self-rated health in Arab Americans. Heritage identity was associated with lower odds of having poor self-rated health (odds ratio = 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15, 0.94, P < 0.05). No association was found between acculturation and poor self-rated health.

CONCLUSION:

Greater levels of stress were not significantly associated with greater odds of poor self-rated health in Arab Americans. We also found that greater heritage identity significantly decreased the odds of poor self-rated health in Arab Americans. The effects of everyday discrimination, perceived stress, and acculturation on self-rated health in Arab Americans remain unclear and need to be examined further.

Effects of financial incentives on volunteering for clinical trials: A randomized vignette experiment

BACKGROUND

Financial incentives may aid recruitment to clinical trials, but evidence regarding risk/burden-driven variability in participant preferences for incentives is limited. We developed and tested a framework to support real-world decisions on recruitment budget.

METHODS

We included two phases: an Anchoring Survey, to ensure we could capture perceived unpleasantness on a range of life events, and a Vignette Experiment, to explore relationships between financial incentives and participants' perceived risk/burden and willingness to participate in high- and low-risk/burden versions of five vignettes drawn from common research activities. We compared vignette ratings to identify similarly rated life events from the Anchoring Survey to contextualize ratings of study risk.

RESULTS

In our Anchoring Survey (n = 643), mean ratings (scale 1 = lowest risk/burden to 5 = highest risk/burden) indicated that the questions made sense to participants, with highest risk assigned to losing house in a fire (4.72), and lowest risk assigned to having blood pressure taken (1.13). In the Vignette Experiment (n = 534), logistic regression indicated that amount of offered financial incentive and perceived risk/burden level were the top two drivers of willingness to participate in four of the five vignettes. Comparison of event ratings in the Anchoring Survey with the Vignette Experiment ratings suggested reasonable concordance on severity of risk/burden.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated feasibility of a framework for assessing participant perceptions of risk for study activities and discerned directionality of relationship between financial incentives and willingness to participate. Future work will explore use of this framework as an evidence-gathering approach for gauging appropriate incentives in real-world study contexts.

Fair payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical research

Routine, nonmedical and ancillary medical costs associated with participation in clinical research create barriers to enrollment for economically disadvantaged individuals. To the extent that race, ethnicity, and gender are linked to SES, such barriers impact efforts to diversify clinical research enrollment. But payment policies and practices often reflect the longstanding and singular concern that payment to participants will bias decision-making and compromise informed consent. We argue that this concern must be viewed in a larger ethical context in which the untoward consequences for the individual participant and for the broader research enterprise are considerable when either inadequate or no payment is provided for expenses incurred ("reimbursement") and time committed ("compensation"). Fairness in payment and protection from undue influence of payment on the informed consent process are important but distinct ethical considerations. Fundamentally, approaches to payment that leave participants financially worse off as a consequence of taking part in research are inherently unjust as they have a differential impact on recruitment and retention based on socioeconomic status. Sponsors, funders, investigators, and IRBs must be cognizant of the impact of inadequate payment on clinical trial inclusion of historically understudied groups. We address practical and fair payment strategies to advance inclusion, the additional barrier of ancillary medical costs, and potential unintended consequences of payment.

Navigating the ethics of remote research data collection

COVID-19 has accelerated broad trends already in place toward remote research data collection and monitoring. This move implicates novel ethical and regulatory challenges which have not yet received due attention. Existing work is preliminary and does not seek to identify or grapple with the issues in a rigorous and sophisticated way. Here, we provide a framework for identifying and addressing challenges that we believe can help the research community realize the benefits of remote technologies while preserving ethical ideals and public trust. We organize issues into several distinct categories and provide points to consider in a table that can help facilitate ethical design and review of research studies using remote health instruments.

Promoting Ethical Payment in Human Infection Challenge Studies

To prepare for potential human infection challenge studies (HICS) involving SARS-CoV-2, we convened a multidisciplinary working group to address ethical questions regarding whether and how much SARS-CoV-2 HICS participants should be paid. Because the goals of paying HICS participants, as well as the relevant ethical concerns, are the same as those arising for other types of clinical research, the same basic framework for ethical payment can apply. This framework divides payment into reimbursement, compensation, and incentives, focusing on fairness and promoting adequate recruitment and retention as counterweights to concerns about undue inducement. Within the basic framework, several factors are especially salient for HICS, and for SARS-CoV-2 HICS in particular, including the nature of participant confinement, anticipated discomfort, risks and uncertainty, participant motivations, and trust. These factors are reflected in a payment worksheet created to help sponsors, researchers, and ethics reviewers systematically develop and assess ethically justifiable payment amounts.

Paying Participants in COVID-19 Trials

Trials are in development and underway to examine potential interventions for treatment and prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). How should we think about offering payment to participants in these trials? Payment for research participation is ethically contentious even under ideal circumstances. Here, we review 3 functions of research payment-reimbursement, compensation, and incentive-and identify heightened and novel ethical concerns in the context of a global pandemic. We argue that COVID-19 trial participants should usually be offered reimbursement for research-related expenses, and compensation for their time and effort, as for other types of research under usual circumstances. Given increased risk of undue influence against pandemic background conditions, incentive payment should be avoided unless essential to recruitment and retention in important trials whose social value outweighs this risk. Where essential, however, incentives can be ethically permissible, so long as reasonable efforts are made to minimize the possibility of undue influence.